Thread: Help - Does anyone out there have a lot of experience in Carter planes?

Carter farmed out an awful lot of their work to small jobbing engineering firms which is why there is such a great variety in what were really only a small handful of tools. I’ve not come across clear coated timber before but it doesn’t surprise me; Carter’s view on quality control was well and truly down the “Nah, yeah; she’ll be right… your round innit?” path.

My Carter 6 was also painted black; I know this was original because it was embedded in the casting sand that hadn’t been properly cleaned out of the screw recesses in the frog.

Carter’s can be made to work after a fashion (and a ridiculous amount of elbow grease); I’m led to believe a good example can be fettled into giving a (insert preferred junk brand here) a run for it’s money although as yet I’ve never come across one.

Hello Bruce,
I don't have any experience other than with the #5 Carter which is my tool box user. It appears to be the same as the one in your post, with an original black finish and lacquered handles. I fitted it with one of the tombstone M2 blades that were available on this forum several years ago, and for me it performs very well. I must state that I am not a woodworking enthusiast, I simply use the appropriate tools I have to produce the outcome I need with wood. If fine shavings are the measure of a good plane, this one is a beauty.

Chas.

IMG_20221120_153944.jpg

Thanks Chas: The interesting thing about the picture of your Carter is that is seems to have the same depth-adjusting knob as the one I found so unusual on mine. That is, from my modest experience of Carters, I had never seen one like this, but seeing that yours also has one of this type, it seems they may have been one of a couple of variations. And I am pleased to hear that it is performing well for you. They are a little rougher-finished than some of the US and British brands, but it seems that some can be made to work quite well anyway.

Yes, the clear lacquer handles don't seem to be common.
The straight knurling on the depth adjuster is also unusual, diamond hatching is more common.
And of course the solid face of the frog is very unusual.
Black painted bodies less so.
You have a rare one there I would suggest
Tom

CarterDA.jpg

Carter.JPG

CarterFrog.JPG

Thanks Tom - I had checked your website out first, which was what confirmed my suspicions that this was unusual. Now I am in a quandary: I was planning to clean this one up as a daily user (including some re-finishing, because I like my tools to look reasonable), but this one is sufficiently different that I feel I should just leave it as an example of one of the less common variations.

Originally Posted by oldBruce

Thanks Tom - I had checked your website out first, which was what confirmed my suspicions that this was unusual. Now I am in a quandary: I was planning to clean this one up as a daily user (including some re-finishing, because I like my tools to look reasonable), but this one is sufficiently different that I feel I should just leave it as an example of one of the less common variations.

Yes, that's probably a good idea.
I've never seen a full faced frog on a Carter before - that's not to say there aren't more of them out there of course.
I've often wondered about what came first with Carters, the partial faced frog or the thicker blade?
Was the frog designed first and then a blade followed which needed to be thicker to combat chatter, or did they start with the blade and used a materials-saving-frog as a result?

You could use turps and an old toothbrush for initial cleaning, and follow that with turps and 000 steel wool for more stubborn grime.
Once the woodwork is clean, try some Durasil car wax or similar. It won't damage the original finish and will give it a lift
Tom

Originally Posted by Scribbly Gum

I've often wondered about what came first with Carters, the partial faced frog or the thicker blade?
Was the frog designed first and then a blade followed which needed to be thicker to combat chatter, or did they start with the blade and used a materials-saving-frog as a result?

I am guessing here, but I believe that the frog on mine may have been earlier than the common one. This is because mine has the thick blade normally associated with Carters. So my logic is that the common frog takes a lot less machining, so why would Carter transition to a full-faced frog (and the additional machining) unless it was so that they could save money by fitting a thinner blade? But if the blade on mine is original, which I believe it is, why would they still fit a thick blade after the additional cost to produce the new frog? So if that logic holds, maybe the full-faced frog was earlier.
So if I am correct, then the thick blade came first, and the frog design followed, once they figured out that there was only compression on the frog at the top and bottom, and their standard thick blade could easily tolerate this with minimal chatter, while saving money on machining the frog.
Or I could be wildly wrong and my logic is just on a ballistic trajectory...

Carter No 5 - 1.jpgCarter No 5 - 2 (60%).jpg
Hi all. To anyone that has been following my journey of discovery, I found this listed on EBay this morning. It provides clear evidence that Carter DID produce (at least No 5) planes with clear-lacquered woodwork, black paint and very Stanley-looking frogs, but with the Carter lateral adjuster. That quells my concerns that someone may have Frankensteined my plane. Although this one has a different depth adjuster to that on mine (and different markings on the cutter), I am prepared to accept that this is small potatoes, compared to the other variations across the Carter range. So now I know something that I didn't, a fortnight ago.

Well there you go.
That one certainly looks like yours.
I wonder if the blade on it is as thick as those that we are accustomed to?
From the pictures, it looks about the same as a Stanley cutter
Tom

I have a Carter No 4 with clear laquered hw handles and black body. Frog not exactly the same but similar, I changed the blade out for a thumbsucker, but prob still have original. Looks a lot llikke thhat.